Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Tims v. Clark County School District, 2:18-cv-00021-JAD-VCF. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20190924d05 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT KASEY GLASS'MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 35 PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF MINOR PLAINTIFF H.H. [ECF No. 217] CAM FERENBACH , Magistrate Judge . Having reviewed and considered Defendant Kasey Glass'Motion to Compel Rule 35 Psychological Examination of Minor Plaintiff H.H. ("Motion") [ECF No. 217], and having read and considered all papers filled in support thereof and in opposition thereto, and having heard and considered the oral arguments of cou
More

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT KASEY GLASS'MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 35 PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF MINOR PLAINTIFF H.H. [ECF No. 217]

Having reviewed and considered Defendant Kasey Glass'Motion to Compel Rule 35 Psychological Examination of Minor Plaintiff H.H. ("Motion") [ECF No. 217], and having read and considered all papers filled in support thereof and in opposition thereto, and having heard and considered the oral arguments of counsel on September 16, 2019, and with good cause appearing, the Court orders as follows:

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Motion is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and the Court orders as follows:

1. The Rule 35 Psychological Examination of minor plaintiff H.H. shall take place on or before October 15, 2019 by Defendant's Rule 35 examiner, Dr. Kimberley Lakes ("Rule 35 Examiner").

2. The Rule 35 examiner's report shall be provided to Plaintiff's counsel on request on or before October 22, 2019. The examiner's report must be in writing and must set out in detail the examiner's findings, including diagnoses, conclusions, and the results of any tests, as provided by Rule 35. Copies of the raw data of the tests shall also be provided to Plaintiff's attorney, Peter Alfert, Esq. only, on request at that time so that it may be provided to Plaintiff's retained expert only, subject to a supplemental confidentiality order. This raw data shall be designated as confidential. Plaintiff's request for a limited deposition of the examiner following the examination is denied without prejudice.

4. The deadline for initial expert reports shall be extended to November 22, 2019.

5. The deadline for rebuttal expert reports shall be extended to December 23, 2019.

6. Expert discovery shall close on January 30, 2020.

7. The parties shall have until March 2, 2020 to file any dispositive motions.

The Court further orders that the exam be conducted under following conditions:

A. The exam shall be limited to the specific tests identified in the motion. Any testing the Rule 35 examiner performs shall be limited to the four tests identified in the motion at ECF 217 at 6:5-8. B. No interview of parents or any other caretaker shall be allowed. C. Plaintiff's guardian ad litem Geneva Atteberry shall be permitted to accompany H.H. and attend the examination but should not be asked or required to take part in any interviews. D. The examination shall be video recorded at Plaintiff's expense. The videographer will set up the video in the corner of the room and not be present during the examination. The video recording of the examination shall be designated as confidential and subject to the confidentiality order (ECF No. 33) and retained by the videographer. The video recording shall not be released by the videographer to anyone except by further Court order. E. Neither Defendant Glass nor any counsel for any party may attend the exam which must be held in neutral conference room in Las Vegas, Nevada.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer